Re: Proposal for Implenting read-only queries during wal replay (SoC 2007) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From plabrh1
Subject Re: Proposal for Implenting read-only queries during wal replay (SoC 2007)
Date
Msg-id 009301c75b7b$02f90e10$be01a8c0@plabxpm01
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal for Implenting read-only queries during wal replay (SoC 2007)  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thanks Josh,

I'll look for the earlier one and try to add it there...

-Paul



-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:09 AM
To: Paul Silveira
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for Implenting read-only queries during wal
replay (SoC 2007)

Paul Silveira wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I just wanted to voice my opinion for this feature...  I've implemented a
> few Production applicaitons with PostgreSQL now and would die for that
> feature.  Right now, I am constantly trying to find way's to make my data
> more available. 

Paul unfortunately you have responded to a hijacked thread. Jonah was
speaking about a project that he wishes would have been accepted which
was called Full Disjunctions.

I have not read the read-only queries during wal replay thread but I can
assure you that Jonah's response had nothing to do with it.

Joshua D. Drake


I've even resulted to using pg_dump to create read only
> copies of the database and placed them behind load balancers to make the
> data more available.  Something like this would allow me to quickly
leverage
> a read only node to scale out the applicaiton...  If it can at all be
built,
> it would get my first, second and third vote. :)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Paul Silveira
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jonah H. Harris-2 wrote:
>> On 2/26/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>> Jonah, I have no idea what "fault" you are trying to blame on the
>>> community in the above statement.  The author didn't discuss the idea
>>> with the community before spending months on it so we have no obligation
>>> to accept it in the core.
>> You're missing the point entirely.  The majority of the (vocal)
>> community didn't even want the feature and as such, failed to provide
>> viable suggestions for him to move forward.  As the majority of the
>> community didn't want the feature, it wouldn't have made a difference
>> when he proposed it; which would have remained negative nonetheless.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
>> EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
>> 33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor            | jharris@enterprisedb.com
>> Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>>
>>                 http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
>>
>>
> 


-- 
     === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997            http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: SOC & user quotas
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Compilation errors